A reflection on Liturgy celebrated "ad orientem"

[Joe_5859]

reverendknow-it-all.blogspot.com/2010/11/reflection-on-liturgy-celebrated-ad.html

This is a blog post from a priest who recently celebrated Mass ad orientem for the first time. I thought he had some nice insights. I was particularly touched by this part:

I, however, wish I had not said Mass facing away from the congregation, and not because of the anger directed at me. I am a Catholic priest. I am used to people being angry with me. I wish I had not said Mass in what I believe to be the posture assumed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, because it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my priestly life. You cannot imagine what it was like to say words like “we” and “our Father” and “us” while standing at the head of a congregation that was turned together in a physical expression of unity. No matter how one might argue to the contrary, it is impossible to say “we” while looking at 500 people and not be speaking to them.

The Mass is a prayer addressed to the Father, and despite our best intentions, we clergy address it to the congregation at whom we are looking. You cannot help it. The human face is a powerful thing. Last Saturday night I realized for the first time that I was part of a family of faith directed toward the same heavenly Father. I felt as if I was part of a church at prayer. It was not my job. It was my church. I never realized how very lonely it is to say Mass facing the people. I am up there looking at you. I am not part of you. For 13 or 14 minutes. You weren’t looking at me. We were looking at God.

Now he knows what he’s been missing.

 

[Pregustator]

reverendknow-it-all.blogspot.com/2010/11/reflection-on-liturgy-celebrated-ad.html

This is a blog post from a priest who recently celebrated Mass ad orientem for the first time. I thought he had some nice insights. I was particularly touched by this part:

I, however, wish I had not said Mass facing away from the congregation, and not because of the anger directed at me. I am a Catholic priest. I am used to people being angry with me. I wish I had not said Mass in what I believe to be the posture assumed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, because it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my priestly life. You cannot imagine what it was like to say words like “we” and “our Father” and “us” while standing at the head of a congregation that was turned together in a physical expression of unity. No matter how one might argue to the contrary, it is impossible to say “we” while looking at 500 people and not be speaking to them.

The Mass is a prayer addressed to the Father, and despite our best intentions, we clergy address it to the congregation at whom we are looking. You cannot help it. The human face is a powerful thing. Last Saturday night I realized for the first time that I was part of a family of faith directed toward the same heavenly Father. I felt as if I was part of a church at prayer. It was not my job. It was my church. I never realized how very lonely it is to say Mass facing the people. I am up there looking at you. I am not part of you. For 13 or 14 minutes. You weren’t looking at me. We were looking at God.

Now he knows what he’s been missing.

It’s a lovely perspective and an interesting one. But even absent such a touching emotional connection to the experience of celebrating Mass in this way, I just wish we, as a Church, weren’t so unnerved by this and other things like it.

In the course of other conversations on this board, I have, by way of underscoring our neuroticism over such things, introduced a comparison to Episcopalian clergy who are quite comfortable celebrating Mass either ad orientem or versus populum. Their congregations likewise manifest no reaction at all to either posture. It is simply the case that when faced with an altar that is against a wall, Episcopalian and Lutheran celebrants just use it as it was intended without issue or fuss, whereas a Catholic celebrant, upon encountering an altar against a wall, will spend six figures to redesign the floor around it and erect a table altar in front of it rather than just use it as is.

The madness doesn’t stop there, however. In some cases, even if Mass is celebrated ad orientem, a Catholic celebrant or pastor will actually opt to “dress up” the new, table altar with six candlesticks and a crucifix, rather than simply use the original altar that was actually designed for that purpose, ignoring it altogether.

The fear that we Catholics seem to have of our churches’ original altars and of ad orientem posture (by our celebrants) is something I find bizarre and inexplicable. Why can these be such non-issues for mainstream liturgical Protestants, but points of contention, anxiety, and confusion for Catholics? Are we all just crazy, or what?

 

[malphono]

Thanks for posting that item and the link. Many of the comments on the blog were nearly as good as the post itself. One, in particular, was perhaps even better. In part is says (emphasis added):

… Before that Mass, I had been working on my theology thesis about the reform of the reform of the liturgy and was caught up in all sorts of details, but did not give think ad orientem posture was nearly as important as a host of other things. At that Mass I experienced the priest praying on our behalf to the Father and offering the sacrifice of the Mass for us in a profound way. I now realize that this one change may have been the most destructive to our liturgy, and it was not even called for by the council fathers! …

I have said for years that this is perhaps the single most important issue that needs to be addressed. Once that hurdle is passed and ad orientem is restored, I believe the rest of the “reform of the reform” will flow naturally.

 

[laszlo]

As a matter of fact the people facing altar was not assumed by the XXI Ecumenical council. The idea was around. Parsh Pius in Vienna and some French priest celebrated Mass (against the rubrics) facing the people since the 1930’s. Still Vatican II did not took stand in the question, it was allowed as preference by Paul VI in 1964,

1. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.
   adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html#anchor36495058

for the reason of focus, not for the ‘we’, people Church concept. Jesus died on the cross alone. As for the concept of ‘we’ I believe that the commanders in the Medieval Eves who physically lead their troops were more with them, than the commanders of the wars of the 20th Century who hid behind the lines.

 

[manualman]

That’s Fr. Richard Simon’s blog, right? He’s awesome and can be heard a couple times a week on the Relevant Radio network show Go Ask Your Father. (google 'em, streaming is available). He’s based in Skokie, IL.

A fantastic speaker, but I’ve twice heard him use questionable quotes.

1. Luther on “our sins covered like a dung heap covered with snow.” That’s apocryphal. Luther appears never to have said it, but it appears in lots of catholic apologetics material (with no primary citation).
2. He recently quoted Archbishop Bugnini as saying that the mass needed to be revised to remove any shadow of a stumbling block for our seperated brethren. Again, can’t find any primary source for that quote. At best, it appears to be a quote of Lefevbre’s amplified summary of Bugnini’s actual words. (per a well cited recent thread on CAF on Bugnini).

I tend to think Fr. Simon is right on in his conclusions, but wonder if he does enough checking of his supporting anecdotes along the way.

 

[Pregustator]

…deleted by author.

 

[Joe_5859]

That’s Fr. Richard Simon’s blog, right? He’s awesome and can be heard a couple times a week on the Relevant Radio network show Go Ask Your Father. (google 'em, streaming is available). He’s based in Skokie, IL.

A fantastic speaker, but I’ve twice heard him use questionable quotes.

1. Luther on “our sins covered like a dung heap covered with snow.” That’s apocryphal. Luther appears never to have said it, but it appears in lots of catholic apologetics material (with no primary citation).
2. He recently quoted Archbishop Bugnini as saying that the mass needed to be revised to remove any shadow of a stumbling block for our seperated brethren. Again, can’t find any primary source for that quote. At best, it appears to be a quote of Lefevbre’s amplified summary of Bugnini’s actual words. (per a well cited recent thread on CAF on Bugnini).

I tend to think Fr. Simon is right on in his conclusions, but wonder if he does enough checking of his supporting anecdotes along the way.

You’re right, that’s the same Fr. Simon.

I wouldn’t necessarily hold his feet to the fire for a few questionable anecdotes, though. I know that I wouldn’t want to be held accountable for fact-checking every anecdote I’ve ever used. I had no idea that Luther quote was apocryphal. When I hear so many people use the same anecdote so many times, it doesn’t usually occur to me to check it out.

I suppose that’s the same sort of thing for much of the anti-Catholic propaganda out there. If I were anti-Catholic and came across the same charges against the Church over and over again, it probably wouldn’t occur to me to question their veracity.

I guess it’s a reminder to me not to be intellectually lazy.

 

[pnewton]

Once that hurdle is passed and ad orientem is restored, I believe the rest of the “reform of the reform” will flow naturally.

I have to say that if there was one thing I would like to see change, this would be it. I know there are some priest who are uncomfortable with the idea, but I think that is because of the misconception that they are “turning their backs” on the congregation instead of being one with them, as they expectantly face liturgical East. I have always believe that Advent would be a wonderful season in which to return to this rich tradition.

 

[laszlo]

I have to say that if there was one thing I would like to see change, this would be it. I know there are some priest who are uncomfortable with the idea, but I think that is because of the misconception that they are “turning their backs” on the congregation instead of being one with them, as they expectantly face liturgical East. I have always believe that Advent would be a wonderful season in which to return to this rich tradition.

The main problem with the people facing altar is the proper place for the tabernacle with the real presence of Christ. It is either

-behind the priest

• somewhere in a side chapel
• behind the people, so the priest faces the tabernacle and faces East but everyone else faces West and shows his/her back to Our Lord. (this is my territorial parish).

I believe many problems with the people centering came from the fact the not Jesus present in the Tabernacle is the center. It would be a drastic change in the Liturgy, if this would be eliminated and the variations suggesting adlibiting would be removed.

 

[malphono]

The main problem with the people facing altar is the proper place for the tabernacle with the real presence of Christ. It is either

-behind the priest

• somewhere in a side chapel
• behind the people, so the priest faces the tabernacle and faces East but everyone else faces West and shows his/her back to Our Lord. (this is my territorial parish).

I believe many problems with the people centering came from the fact the not Jesus present in the Tabernacle is the center. It would be a drastic change in the Liturgy, if this would be eliminated and the variations suggesting adlibiting would be removed.

 

[pnewton]

The main problem with the people facing altar is the proper place for the tabernacle with the real presence of Christ. It is either

-behind the priest

• somewhere in a side chapel
• behind the people, so the priest faces the tabernacle and faces East but everyone else faces West and shows his/her back to Our Lord. (this is my territorial parish).

I believe many problems with the people centering came from the fact the not Jesus present in the Tabernacle is the center. It would be a drastic change in the Liturgy, if this would be eliminated and the variations suggesting adlibiting would be removed.

I know. If a parish were to implement this, there might have to be some minor adjustments made to the structure of the altar area. Still, liturgical East is not strictly about facing the tabernacle. In fact, if the Church was built of the proper axis, liturgical East* is *East. When it is not, some things may have to be moved.

I know that this is one area that the Holy Father was interested in before he became Pope. It may well be the first major reform we see. Or not. Time will tell.

 

[Pregustator]

I know. If a parish were to implement this, there might have to be some minor adjustments made to the structure of the altar area. Still, liturgical East is not strictly about facing the tabernacle. In fact, if the Church was built of the proper axis, liturgical East* is *East. When it is not, some things may have to be moved.

I know that this is one area that the Holy Father was interested in before he became Pope. It may well be the first major reform we see. Or not. Time will tell.

Ad orientem posture implies nothing about the tabernacle at all, as I understand things. Particularly when you consider that not every main altar even has a tabernacle. If ad orientem posture meant facing the tabernacle to celebrate Mass, that would put the Pope, for example, at a very strange place at the altar of St. Peter’s.

 

[malphono]

Ad orientem posture implies nothing about the tabernacle at all, as I understand things.

Yes, that is quite correct.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the priest should face versus populum during the Liturgy of the Word, and ad orientem during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. One of the “wierd” things for me in the EF is that the priest is reading the Gospel with his back towards the people. Isn’t the Gospel proclaimed to the people?

 

[Pregustator]

I think the priest should face versus populum during the Liturgy of the Word, and ad orientem during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. One of the “wierd” things for me in the EF is that the priest is reading the Gospel with his back towards the people. Isn’t the Gospel proclaimed to the people?

Actually, the Gospel, in the Tridentine form, is proclaimed facing North (I have no idea why), so that the celebrant’s left side is facing the congregation.

 

[ProVobis]

One of the “wierd” things for me in the EF is that the priest is reading the Gospel with his back towards the people. Isn’t the Gospel proclaimed to the people?

He’s supposed to be preaching facing north as that is where the barbarians who would be attacking the Christians came from. I’ll see if I can find sources.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, the Gospel, in the Tridentine form, is proclaimed facing North (I have no idea why), so that the celebrant’s left side is facing the congregation.

In the EF I attended (FSSP) he has his back toward us. If he were to face north, he would have faced the people. Its easy to know where North is in Vancouver because of the mountains. Or are you talking about (and is there such a thing as) Liturgical North?

 

[malphono]

In the EF I attended (FSSP) he has his back toward us. If he were to face north, he would have faced the people. Its easy to know where North is in Vancouver because of the mountains. Or are you talking about (and is there such a thing as) Liturgical North?

The left side of the altar is often traditionally called the “Gospel side,” so think of it as facing to the left of “liturgical East.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

The left side of the altar is often traditionally called the “Gospel side,” so think of it as facing to the left of “liturgical East.”

Right, he was off to the side and not really fully back towards the people but still mostly back and not really fully facing left but more like 45-degrees. Anyway, its just my opinion but I still think it makes sense for the Liturgy of the Word to be versus populum for the obvious reason.

 

[ProVobis]

The Epistle and Gospel side were discussed here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121788

More here:

Why is the Epistle read facing towards the altar, and the Gospel read facing to the right of the Altar (from the altar’s perspective; from the perspective of the faithful, to the left)?

First and foremost, we must establish that proper orientation for the celebration of Mass is toward the East. That is, all prayers were directed toward God and all faced God in the same direction, i.e., toward the east. This begs the question: What if the sanctuary is NOT, technically, at the eastern extremity of the building. This happens a lot today. Very often, it is not possible to build churches with the proper orientation, technically speaking. How was this dealt with? The same way many things are dealt with today… by conferring “virtual” properties on them. Hence, even if the sanctuary is not at the eastern end of the “nave,” it is “virtually” considered so inside the church. When one enters the church, one leaves the world and things of the world. After all, at Holy Rosary, the Extraordinary Form, technically speaking, is celebrated facing north. The Ordinary Form, technically speaking, is celebrated facing south. However, for our purposes, we consider the Extraordinary Form in this Q/A forum.

Both readings in the Mass, i.e., the Epistle and Gospel, are primarily for the instruction of the faithful. The ancient practice was that the reader for both the Epistle and Gospel, faced the congregation. Over the centuries changes have occurred. Father O’Connell in his The Celebration of Mass, writes that the subdeacon, away from the altar, but in the sanctuary, may chant the Epistle facing the altar (as does the celebrant at Low Mass), but that it is preferable that he chant the Epistle facing the faithful. With regard to the Gospel: At Low Mass, the celebrant faces north-east, more or less. Some relevance for this may be found below. N.B. As the subdeacon mirrors the posture of the celebrant for the Epistle, so does the deacon for the Gospel. In the Solemn Mass, the deacon chants the Gospel away from the altar, in the sanctuary (room permitting) or, in the case of Holy Rosary – where room in the sanctuary is at a premium – in the nave transept, facing due north. Why? There are reasons, both conventional and anecdotal. First, there is always the necessity to show reverence. In this case, reverence for the altar which represents Christ and for the celebrant, alter Christus. The deacon should not turn his back to the celebrant or to the altar. Hence, he can not fully face the faithful. However, facing north, he is able to face the faithful “halfway” and, simultaneously, does not completely turn his back on the altar and celebrant. There may also be some truth in the following anecdotal reason: The Gospel is to be proclaimed to the heathen. From Rome’s geographical perspective, the heathen are to the north, i.e., the Franks, Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, etc. Facing the north, the deacon proclaims the Gospel to the heathen.

---

holyrosaryindy.org/questions.html